Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[Stevil]

Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin.  "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!"  But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony.  I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?

You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic?   

You ladies are sooooooo hard to please.

Unfortunately our zoo was not equipped to look after him and Kelly Talton's underwater world didn't want him. I don't know if they considered selling him internationally to other zoos. My suggestion was rather tongue in cheek, but I certainly don't think sending him back home was the best option.

[Stevil]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.


What would you do?

[Davin]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.


What would you do?

In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.

So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.

[Stevil]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.


What would you do?

In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.

So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.

Lets say that everything checked out. You can take the car if you want, no-one else will care, you have absolutely no repercussions.
If you don't take it now, someone else will.

What do you do?

[Davin]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

You find a shiny new Ferrari (an Enzo), with the keys in it and a letter that states the owner has become religion and has decided to give up all earthly possessions, if you want the car please feel free to take her, enjoy.


What would you do?

In this case it would be perfectly legal and non-violent to take the car. However in real life, I would take steps to make sure that the person who owned the car was actually the person that wrote the note.

So I don't see what this has to do with Asmo's point.

Lets say that everything checked out. You can take the car if you want, no-one else will care, you have absolutely no repercussions.
If you don't take it now, someone else will.

What do you do?

I most likely wouldn't bother, but I don't see any issue with taking it. But again, I don't see how this has anything to do with Asmo's point.

[Stevil]

3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?

I am trying to establish motive behind 3.
Asmodean has stated that neither the law nor violent repercussions stop him from acting in his self interests.
I am trying to establish if coming into possession of a brand new Ferrarri Enzo might be perceived as in his self interest.

Then I want to try and work out what it is that is stopping him from taking the Ferrarri and whether this is consistent with his self interest.

[Ali]

Could "self interest" be "self image."  Meaning that if I choose not to take the Ferrari, it is because taking the Ferrari is inconsistent with the way that I want to view myself (materialistic, takes advantage of people not in their right mind, et cetera.)

(Also trying to get behind Asmo's motives.)

[Stevil]

Could "self interest" be "self image."  Meaning that if I choose not to take the Ferrari, it is because taking the Ferrari is inconsistent with the way that I want to view myself (materialistic, takes advantage of people not in their right mind, et cetera.)

(Also trying to get behind Asmo's motives.)

There could be many reasons. For the purposes of this thread I am wondering if Asmodean perceives "morals" as being intrinsic to his reasons.

[Stevil]

It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.

But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.

We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.

I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.

[Ali]

It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.

But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.

We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.

I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.

I'm personally not so gung ho about  eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands.  It's accessible.  I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.

[Davin]

It seems to me that morality is used as a alternative for engaging critical thought.
Fair enough if a person is deciding to choose their own actions, they may have good reason to trust their own gut feelings without truly understanding the why. Our subconscious is sometime smarter than we give it credit for.

But when a person wants to judge others or put restrictions into law then gut feel or a morality standard does not cut the mustard. Society demands an explanation as to why they are being restricted or judged. The explanation must be critically reasoned and must tie into a common goal e.g. functional society.

We need to understand if the explanation is an excuse or is a justification. Excuses ought not to be tolerated.

I am hoping that people on this forum can understand that without morality, we can expect an extremely civil, inclusive and functionally stable society.

I think the biggest problem you're having in this discussion, is that you're using a definition of morality that most people do not agree with. The implications in the first sentence alone imply that what you consider morality is very different than what other people consider morality. In the very least, I don't use morality as an alternative to critical thought.

You appear to be conflating a person's moral standard with gut feelings, when that's not necessarily the case. To me, morality refers to a code of conduct, which very much falls in line with what you're saying. In effect, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with your definition of morality.

[Stevil]

I think the biggest problem you're having in this discussion, is that you're using a definition of morality that most people do not agree with. The implications in the first sentence alone imply that what you consider morality is very different than what other people consider morality. In the very least, I don't use morality as an alternative to critical thought.

You appear to be conflating a person's moral standard with gut feelings, when that's not necessarily the case. To me, morality refers to a code of conduct, which very much falls in line with what you're saying. In effect, I don't disagree with you, I disagree with your definition of morality.

I was going with what Ali said. That she sometimes judges something as moral or immoral due to an emotional response she has. I think this is probably a very natural and human thing to do.

[Stevil]

I'm personally not so gung ho about  eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands.

Our language is influenced by thousands of years of theistic influence. The dice are loaded in their favour.
Atheism is in a difficult position because of this IMHO.

 I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.

Not being an American, I am not sold on the American constitution.
I don't think of religion as anything special, I don't think a special case needs to be made for it in particular. Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, freedom of any kind of belief is fine. I don't see why religion in particular should be free from government entanglement. All sub groups within our society need to be held accountable under the law.

[Stevil]

From Wiki

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right)

.
I am arguing against a moral code, against a list of rights and a list of wrongs.
I am arguing against the teaching of a moral code and the practice of judgement with reference to a moral code.
I am arguing against the English language and the use of the word "morality", "moral", "immoral", I am arguing against words that are derived from a perceived moral code "ethical", "rights".

Externalising of morality leads to oppression and conflict of members of society IMHO. Internalising of morality leads to suspension of critical reasoning IMHO.

I have issues with a person justifing an act because it is good. I would like to have people explain why it is good. Same thing for bad.

[Ali]

I'm personally not so gung ho about  eliminating the terms "morality", "right", "wrong", because I think that this is language that most everyone speaks and understands.

Our language is influenced by thousands of years of theistic influence. The dice are loaded in their favour.
Atheism is in a difficult position because of this IMHO.

 I will say though, that I think that all laws should have to pass a sort of Lemon Test.

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

We can add or substitute "personal values" for religion if you like.

Not being an American, I am not sold on the American constitution.
I don't think of religion as anything special, I don't think a special case needs to be made for it in particular. Freedom of speech, freedom of thoughts, freedom of any kind of belief is fine. I don't see why religion in particular should be free from government entanglement. All sub groups within our society need to be held accountable under the law.

As I understand it, the point of the Lemon Law is to serve as a sort of rule of thumb to try to ensure that the laws that are being passed are not being passed solely on the basis of religion; they have to hold a non-religious function.  For example, a law proposed by Jews and Muslims to outlaw pork would fail the Lemon test.  That's why I thought you would approve of some sort of Lemon-esque law that asks that the only laws that be passed are the ones needed to help society function (as opposed to based on religion or based on personal values.)